Recent Reading

Music Database

Had a lazy, bewildering week, where I didn't get any work done on the
server/websites, so I wound up with nothing better to do on Sunday than
gather up another Weekend Roundup.

Some scattered links this week:

Julia Azari: Is Trump's Legitimacy at Risk? I generally don't care
to get into these polling things, but while I've been feeling more
pessimistic the last couple weeks about the public's ability to see
through Trump's relentless torrent of scandal and outrage, it turns
out that his approve/disapprove ratings have actually taken a sudden
plunge: down to 40.3% approve, 54.5% disapprove. Similarly, the
generic Congress split now favors the Democrats 48.8% to 39.4%.
I don't have any real explanation for this. Maybe the attempts to
use McCain's death to shame Trump are paying off? Maybe, with the
first convictions of Manafort and Cohen's guilty plea, the Russia
probe is finally drawing blood. I've long felt that there's a fair
slice of the electorate that simply wishes public embarrassments
to go away. In fact, I think most of those voters turned on Hillary
Clinton, not so much because they thought she was guilty of anything
as because they knew that if she was elected president, we'd wind
up enduring years of feverishly hyped pseudo-scandal charges. It
could also be how poorly Trump and his flacks are handling all the
charges: they are acting pretty guilty of something, especially in
their appeals to shut the investigation down. It's also possible
that their inability to make progress with North Korea is costing
them.

Jason Ditz: US Strategy in Syria: 'Create Quagmires Until We Get What
We Want': Quotes a Trump official as saying, "right now, our job
is to help create quagmires [for Russia and the Syrian regime] until
we get what we want." This reminds me of something I've occasionally
wondered about over the years: Could the US have negotiated an end to
the Vietnam War where power was ceded over to the DRV but with amnesty
so that no one who had sided with the US during the war would be jailed
or discriminated against once power changes hands? Such an agreement
could include an exile option, such that if the DRV really wanted to
get rid of someone, or if someone really couldn't abide living on in
the DRV, that person could go elsewhere. One might also have hoped to
negotiate further rights guarantees, but amnesty with the exile option
covers the worst-case scenarios without making much of an imposition
on DRV sovereignty. As far as I know, the US never even broached this
possibility. And it's possible the DRV wouldn't have agreed, or would
have reneged after US forces left, but still it would have shown that
the US felt some responsibility to the people it recruited to fight
what ultimately proved to be a very selfish and egotistical war.

One can ask the same thing about Syria, or Afghanistan for that
matter. At this point, it looks like Assad will prevail, at least
in reoccupying the last major holdout region, in Idlib. After that,
it's not clear: Syria has been wrecked, millions have been driven
into refugee camps and/or abroad, the economy has cratered, a lot
of people have offended the regime, and the regime has long tended
to harshly punish any sign of dissidence. Meanwhile, some level of
guerrilla activity is likely to continue, especially if the foreign
powers that have repeatedly funneled arms and fighters into Syria
don't put a stop to it. This would, in short, seem to be a situation
that sorely needs a negotiated end. And taking the restoration of
the Assad regime as a given, the only other real consideration is
the welfare of the Syrian people. Yet, here we have Trump's flack
saying we don't want to soften the landing in any way: we want to
keep forcing Syria and Russia into untenable situations ("quagmires")
because we have blind faith that eventually Assad will collapse and
we'll get out way. One obvious rejoinder here is that Libya's regime
did collapse, and the US got nothing worthwhile out of the resulting
chaos. Nor has Yemen panned out in our favor.

James K Galbraith: Why do American CEOs get paid so much? In
1965, which is now remembered as some sort of golden age for the
middle class, CEO pay averaged 20 times what median workers made --
a disparity which hardly qualifies as equality. Today the ratio is
312 to 1. Much of that comes in the form of stock, which nominally
tracks future expected profit. With such incentives, CEOs focus on
short-term gains, often by taking on risk, short-changing r&d,
and squeezing employees.

But perhaps what's most scary about this scorching summer is how
little concerned Americans seem to be. . . . As a country, we remain
committed to denial and delay, even as the world, in an ever more
literal sense, goes up in flames.

Paul Krugman: For Whom the Economy Grows: As you probably know,
the government works constantly to track GDP growth, which is why, for
instance, we can officially identify, date and measure recessions.
Chuck Schumer has introduced a bill to take the next step and figure
out who pockets that growth. For instance, one oft-noted statistic
was that during the first few years of recovery from the 2008-09
recession, no less than 97% of the economy's gains went to the top
1% of income recipients. Looking at that statistic, it's no wonder
why most Americans scarcely noticed that there was any recovery at
all. The same dynamic probably applies today. We hear, for instance,
Trump bragging about how strong the economy is, but unless you own
a lot of stock and have a high income, you probably haven't noticed
any personal change.

Laura McGann: Obama's McCain eulogy would be banal under any other
president: I thought it significant that Obama sent a written
message to be read at Aretha Franklin's funeral, but showed up in
person for McCain's. He's ever the politician, even though he never
looked as happy on the job as he did watching Aretha perform a few
years back. One might argue that he was a mere fan to Aretha, where
the four years he and McCain overlapped in the Senate gave them a
personal connection, perhaps even one that tempered their twelve
years in political opposition. There's nothing wrong with treating
political foes civilly, and it's often possible to respect people
you disagree with (sometimes even profoundly). One might even claim
that in death at last McCain brought forth some sort of centrist
political miracle, bringing the opponents who defeated him in two
presidential campaigns (GW Bush was the other one) and assorted
other bigwigs of both political parties and the media empires that
promote and lord over them. On the other hand,
those paying tribute included Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Henry
Kissinger, Lindsay Graham, Warren Beatty, Jay Leno, Michael Bloomberg,
"and a plethora of current and former senators and cabinet secretaries
from both parties." In other words, people who have much more in
their common perch atop America's far-flung imperial war machine
than they do with the overwhelming majority of Americans. So, of
course Obama's remarks were banal. As much as anyone, he's fluent
in the coded language these elites use to speak to one another,
as well as the platitudes they lay on the public. All this would
be completely unremarkable but for the one guy in American politics
who broke the code and trashed the platitudes, and still somehow
got elected to the office McCain could never win: President Donald
Trump. The point of McGann's piece is that Obama's mundane address
should be taken as a subtle critique of Trump, but to what point?
There are many problems with Donald Trump, but his being impolitic
isn't a very important one. I get the feeling that many Democrats
think that by cozying up to the dead McCain they're scoring points
against the nemesis Trump. They're not -- at least not with anyone
they need to convince to resist Trump. Moreover, they're doing it
on McCain's turf, on his terms, which is to say they're lining up
with the most persistent war hawks of the last 50-60 years. (You
do know who Kissinger is, don't you?) When Obama praises how much
McCain loves his country, he's talking about a guy who never shied
away from a possible war, who never regretted a war he supported,
who never learned a single lesson about the costs of war. Back in
Vietnam, the saying went: "in order to save the village, we had to
destroy it." Since returning from Vietnam, McCain's adopted that
irony as the pinnacle of patriotism. Of course, as a conservative
Republican, he's found other ways to save villages by destroying
them.

If you're not sick of reading about McCain by now, here are
some more links:

Susan B Glasser: John McCain's Funeral Was the Biggest Resistance
Meeting Yet: She doesn't give us numbers to back up the "biggest"
claim, but no church could hold the
500,000 to 1,000,000 people at the January 2017 Women's March
on Washington right after the Trump inauguration. Maybe by "biggest"
she's thinking quality over quantity? Her subhed: "Two ex-Presidents
and one eloquent daughter teamed up to rebuke the pointedly uninvited
Donald Trump." (The ex-presidents you know about, and more on the
daughter below.) I understand that many people find Trump so repulsive
that they will rejoice at any sign of rejecting him, but with McCain
you don't get much -- is the disinvite of Trump anything more than a
personal spat between two notoriously thin-skinned politicians? --
plus you're cuddling up to a lot of unsavory baggage. Nor has McCain
really differed from Trump on much.
FiveThirtyEight has a tool for tracking how often Senators vote
with Trump, and McCain scores 83.0% and, factoring in Trump's margin
in his state, that places him just above Ted Cruz and Joni
Ernst. To paraphrase Trump himself, I prefer resistance heroes
who don't get captured by the enemy. PS: More names of those on
hand -- remember, this was invitation-only: John Boehner, David
Petraeus, Leon Panetta, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Paul Ryan,
John Bolton, John Kelly, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Hillary
Clinton. OK, to not
muddy the effect, I left out Elizabeth Warren -- aside from the
obvious disconnects, I'm pretty sure she's the only one to come
from a working-class family. I'm not saying that she shouldn't
have attended. Just that no one should mistake this crowd for
one of her rallies. PPS: OK, here's the "gag me" line:

Heads nodded. Democratic heads and Republican ones alike. For a moment,
at least, they still lived in the America where Obama and Bush and Bill
Clinton and Dick Cheney could all sit in the same pew, in the same
church, and sing the same words to the patriotic hymns that made them
all teary-eyed at the same time. When the two Presidents were done
speaking, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" blared out. This time, once
again, the battle is within America. The country's leadership, the
flawed, all too human men and women who have run the place, successfully
or not, for the past few decades, were all in the same room, at least
for a few hours on a Saturday morning.

The America of John McCain is the America of Abraham Lincoln:
fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence that
all men are created equal and suffering greatly to see it through.
The America of John McCain is the America of the boys who rushed
the colors in every war across three centuries, knowing that in
them is the life of the republic. And particularly those by their
daring, as Ronald Reagan said, gave up their chance at being
husbands and fathers and grandfathers and gave up their chance
to be revered old men. The America of John McCain is, yes, the
America of Vietnam, fighting the fight even in the most forlorn
cause, even in the most grim circumstances, even in the most
distant and hostile corner of the world, standing even defeat
for the life and liberty of other people in other lands.

Matthew Yglesias: The fight over renaming the Russell Senate Office
Building after John McCain, explained: I thought this was a
terrible idea. Then I remembered who Richard Russell was, so I
wouldn't mind tearing down his name. Still, one could do a lot
better than McCain. At the head of the list, I'd put the two senators
who voted against the Tonkin Gulf resolution that authorized LBJ to
escalate the Vietnam War: Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse. I'd pick
Morse: he served longer, straddled both parties (initially elected as
a progressive Republican before becoming a Democrat), and he held (or
for all I know may still hold) the record for the longest filibuster
speech -- a very Senator-y thing to do.

Laura McGann: John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the rise of reality TV
politics: Yeah, not his brightest hour picking Palin to be his
running mate, hailing that as "a team of mavericks." But being McCain,
he's never had to apologize for anything, but he always has an excuse
for everything: "After being diagnosed with cancer, McCain still
defended Palin's performance but said he regretted not picking
[Joe] Lieberman as his running mate."

Matt Taibbi: Why Did John McCain Continue to Support War? More
on Vietnam, but also Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria -- hey,
what about the one that got away, Georgia? McCain's constant lust
for war, as well as his blindness to the consequences of those wars,
has been a constant in our political lives since he first campaigned
for the House. Indeed, he was probably recruited for just that purpose.
But Taibbi is right that McCain didn't cause the wars he promoted.
Rather, America has a problem (dating back to WWII) in thinking that
military force is the answer to all our problems in the world. It is
that mindset that keeps the warmakers in business. And that's why we
should feel shame and horror when people we look to for peace honor
someone like McCain.

Richard Silverstein: Trump to Defund UNWRA to Eliminate Palestinian
Refugee Status, Right of Return: This is supposed to be the stick
after Jared Kushner's
"deal of the century went splat. The idea seems to be that without
UN recognition and US aid five million Palestinians will give up their
refugee status and stop pestering Israel about their so-called Right
of Return. The effect is that Palestinian leaders will stop kowtowing
to insincere and unprincipled American advice, rightly seeing the US
as a puppet of Israel, extraneous to any possible peace process. Good
chance US support in Europe will further diminish, although there
could be lots of reasons for that.

Speaking to reporters briefly at the White House, Donald Trump repeated
the most consequential of the many lies of his presidency -- that the
federal government did a "fantastic job" in its response to last year's
Hurricane Maria catastrophe that killed nearly 3,000 people in Puerto
Rico.

That's a line that Trump has maintained ever since he made a belated
visit to the island after two straight weekends golfing, followed by
the observation that "it's been incredible the results that we've had
with respect to loss of life."

In fact, the results they had with respect to the loss of life were
awful. Awful in terms of the sheer number of dead, but also awful in
terms of the reluctance from the very beginning to deliver an accurate
death count. That the disaster turned out to be deadlier even than
Hurricane Katrina is shocking, and the fact that it took the government
until this week to finally acknowledge that fact is an entirely separate
shock.